The Bf-109G and K performed better at high alltitudes anyhow.
P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Is it worth considering that, at the time that the 'sweep' tactics were adopted by the Mustangs, Germany was really feeling the bite of shotages and disruption of almost everything?
There was nothing wrong with the later variants of the 109; they were excellent fighting machines, refined over years of war. The same cannot be said of the great majority of pilots who flew them, for whom a 109 must have seemed a horrifying animal, what with thr torque on take-off, wing-loading, high-speed stalls and g forces.
There simply weren't enough men, nor the time or resouces to train them properly. Experten were thin on the ground and getting thinner by the day.
By the way, I wholly endorse the view that every pilot thinks that the plane HE flew was the best thing ever; it comes through every book I ever read. I will, however, take issue with the point that the British deliberately distorted the comparison in tests made between a captured 109 and a Spitfire: to do such a thing would be criminally stupid and that is one thing that the British most certainly weren't (most of them, anyway).
There was nothing wrong with the later variants of the 109; they were excellent fighting machines, refined over years of war. The same cannot be said of the great majority of pilots who flew them, for whom a 109 must have seemed a horrifying animal, what with thr torque on take-off, wing-loading, high-speed stalls and g forces.
There simply weren't enough men, nor the time or resouces to train them properly. Experten were thin on the ground and getting thinner by the day.
By the way, I wholly endorse the view that every pilot thinks that the plane HE flew was the best thing ever; it comes through every book I ever read. I will, however, take issue with the point that the British deliberately distorted the comparison in tests made between a captured 109 and a Spitfire: to do such a thing would be criminally stupid and that is one thing that the British most certainly weren't (most of them, anyway).
You are correct in your assumption that the Luftwaffe was running on a shortage of materials and fuel. They were also not able to replace there losses like the allies were able to.
As for the Spitfire vs 109 test. They were not very accurate. They compared it to a 109 that was weighted down with drop tanks and such not. I am sure the results would have varied more if they had removed it.
As for the Spitfire vs 109 test. They were not very accurate. They compared it to a 109 that was weighted down with drop tanks and such not. I am sure the results would have varied more if they had removed it.
Then I'm quite sure it wasn't an official evaluation. Such tests were carried out under rigorously controlled conditions to ensure that the results were fair and accurate. After all, the people who were going to be given the information were squadron pilots who would more than likely meet those same aircraft for real; giving them false gen would result in some very pungent comments at the least! I can see that some figures might be 'bent' for propaganda purposes for civilian consumption, though.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
There is always a bias when testing aircraft. If the pilot likes it he tries harder, if he's Navy flying an Air Force plane - of course it's not as good etc. Many times the bias unintentional but it is there anyway. Sometimes it's just expertise with the various aircraft - the pilot is going to get more out of the plane he has 200hrs in over the one he has 20hrs in. Lastly the captured plane may be running worse than normal or as noted above in a unfavorable configuration.
wmaxt
wmaxt
Very good point there. The British pilots who flew the 109 did not have the experience in the 109 that the German pilots did. The Luftwaffe pilots knew how to get the most out of her while the British were trying to figure her out.
That is probably a very good generalization there.
plan_D said:
Exactly.
The British test-pilots stopped any maneuver as soon as the slats came out, as the loud bang and slight notch in the controls almost made them shit their pants.
However that the 'Majority' of LW pilots did the same is slightly untrue, the majority of 'fresh' LW pilots did. Properly trained LW pilots didnt make this mistake. -With the exception of the early war pilots flying the 109E which slats jammed, scaring many of the pilots for life. (A good example is Günther Rall who experienced this very early in his career, and never attempted such wild maneuvers again)
The Bf-109 was only the master-piece of engineering it was in the hands of an expert. The Bf-109 still to this day does not get recognition as a great turning fighter and there is a reason for that. The reason is most Bf-109s didn't turn well because their pilots weren't fully capable with the Bf-109 because the 109 was, quite frankly, a twat to fly.
Depends on the varients. The 109E was known to fly very well at high speeds.
It still wasn't a nice aircraft to fly, I read somewhere over 1,500 Bf-109E and F were lost in a few months during 1941-'42 due purely to accidents. The difficulty to fly increased in the G and even more so in the K. That's why I think the F was the best.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
most of these accidents would be on take off and landing i'm assuming??
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Landing! - narrow landing gear, high horse power, poor visibility, add a good crosswind and its an accident waiting to happen, even for a seasoned pilot!
I don't know, possibly. I have read the section again and it wasn't in a few months, it was E and Fs from 1940-1942.
The major problems being;
There was no rudder trimmer, at high speed constant pressure had to be kept on the rudder pedal to keep it straight.
The flight controls tightened up above 300 mph, pilots had to hold their arms out in front and could not get good leverage except for fore and aft movement.
In tight manoeuvres, the slats snatched open which caused sudden yaw, this made aiming almost impossible. Handling the plane in these situations was also extremely tiring.
This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38.
When the Gustav was introduced the flight controls were arranged poorly. The higher torque engine produced a larger swing on take off and landing, which was already bad enough with the narrow landing gear.
The only make up for increase of weight was an extra 275 hp in the DB 605A (1475 hp) and GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost. No new larger wing was installed. So, the problems had either remained or were made worse.
The major problems being;
There was no rudder trimmer, at high speed constant pressure had to be kept on the rudder pedal to keep it straight.
The flight controls tightened up above 300 mph, pilots had to hold their arms out in front and could not get good leverage except for fore and aft movement.
In tight manoeuvres, the slats snatched open which caused sudden yaw, this made aiming almost impossible. Handling the plane in these situations was also extremely tiring.
This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38.
When the Gustav was introduced the flight controls were arranged poorly. The higher torque engine produced a larger swing on take off and landing, which was already bad enough with the narrow landing gear.
The only make up for increase of weight was an extra 275 hp in the DB 605A (1475 hp) and GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost. No new larger wing was installed. So, the problems had either remained or were made worse.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
The -38 was a handful on one engine (especially on take off) and of course during a dive. Other than that I'm told she was actually easy to fly.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
YEPPERS!
Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.
plan_D said:
No, just with a properly trained pilot.
Your very wrong here Plan_D, as the 109 has actually been called an excellent T&B fighter by virtually all modern pilots who has flown the few remaining examples to this date. (I've seen 'none' who describe it as sluggish in any way)
An American pilot even said he could easely take on two or three P-51 Mustangs in his 109.
So the few modern day results with the Bf-109 actually presents it as a formidable dogfighter.
This 'hardness' to fly myth has been highly exaggerated by british test reports on the 109E and 109G with gun-pods, in reality it wasnt a problem at all as described by German and Finnish pilots who flew it.
Remember Plan_D, there's a reason why the 109 gave birth to such a record braking number of aces, from both Germany and Finland ! It was simply an excellent fighter.
